Category: Life Ordinary

  • Twitter, #cwc11 and me

    Since I’m not sure whether we’ll dominate like the Australians have been doing for a while, or wait for another 28 years and make it special, I wanted to document what I was doing during the match that made us World Champions. No expert comments, no emotional attya4, just pure fun in 140 characters. But at the end of it, we witnessed a moment that I think I can clearly reconstruct even decades later, this is just a back up 🙂

  • Roleplay

    Jagathy Sreekumar, in my opinion, is one of the finest comedians actors to grace the screen. Probably THE finest. Since he’s acted only in Malayalam movies (over 1000 of them), he’s relatively lesser known to non Keralites. But you don’t have to go away, this is not about him or even Malayalam movies or even movies.

    Contrary to his usual on-screen characters, he’s a very serious person in his media interviews. He was once asked why he accepted all the roles that came to him, and why he wasn’t more choosy, especially since he could afford to. Pat came the reply “I’m a professional. Do you think a doctor should be allowed to choose which patients to accept?”The interviewer predictably moved on to easier pastures.

    This was sometime back, but I was reminded of it during the debate on Tendulkar ‘walking’.  (he walked away despite the umpire signaling ‘not out’) Both Jayawardene and Ponting were clear that they’d walk only after they were declared out. Though I have not always been a Tendulkar fan, I have been an ardent admirer for quite a while now, of the player on the field and the person off it.

    So it was quite a difficult question – the morality of a professional (?) ‘walking’ without considering his responsibilities to the team. (forget the expectations of a nation for now) Was he being selfish – keeping his ‘fair play’ image intact? (though Ganguly claimed Sachin hasn’t always ‘walked’)

    While the moral question lingers, I thought I got an insight into Sachin’s behaviour from this amazing article I read thanks to Roshni. It says that Sachin is a bridge, between two eras of cricket, and he realises the responsibility. As a sport, today’s cricket, both on and off the field, is vastly different from what it used to be, and yes, it is no longer just a sport. As the author quotes “The team’s rabid popularity, is a reflection of rising national ambition, of pride in national achievement.” Maybe Sachin realises a bit beyond this too, and is doing his bit to ensure that in the pursuit of success, a right set of ethos is also kept in mind. Playing the game to win, and playing it fair.

    Jagathy, legendary though he is, perhaps has it easier. There are bigger stars around him who are expected to be role models. He can get away with moral absolutism.  Tendulkar probably has the tougher job – as he charts new territories in terms of matches played, runs scored, centuries made, he also has to navigate new grounds in moral integrity, balancing his own stance with the expectations of a team, a nation and still ensuring that he’s a worthy icon in all respects.

    until next time, Godlike

  • Egonomy

    One of the reasons why I liked Gary more than the other two judges in Masterchef was that he played a perfect balance – maintaining that certain amount of gravitas that his role demanded while regularly showing that he really didn’t seem to take himself that seriously.

    The best example of that was the show before the finals when there was a role reversal and the judges cooked while the contestants judged. Not only did he take part in some delightful banter, but his reaction when the ‘judges’ found a bone in his dish (strict no-no) was completely priceless.

    Mind you, as the accomplishments and the episodes of MasterClass would show you, Gary is damn good at what he does. And yet, its as though he has not allowed any of that to touch him. Which leads me to the thought I’m pondering over – is the lack of ego a function of having complete faith in oneself? If, for a moment, we leave aside the argument that a ‘certain amount of ego’ is necessary for living out this life, is the thought plausible? If the faith in self is absolute, will the ego have no reason to exist or will it completely take over since it has all the reason to exist?

    until next time, egologic

  • Comics and moral signs

    Though many claim that most comic book – movie adaptations completely spoil the original work, I still find them fascinating, simply because of discovery. Many a time, I have realised that comics are an amazing representation of culture, whether it’s popular, alternate, counter or even imaginary (eg. different renditions of myths, accommodating the changing ethos), either overtly or through subtext. So they work like a time portal for me, giving me a vicarious experience of a different era. (just like some books, music, cooking, smells etc)

    I’d never have known about Watchmen if not for the movie. Since I don’t want to miss out on references and subtext, I always try to read up on the characters and original work before watching the movie. And that’s how I came across the concept of moral absolutism, while reading about Rorschach, an amazing character, made more so by a class performance by Jackie Earle Haley. Wikipedia defines moral absolutism as the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, regardless of other contexts such as their consequences or the intentions behind them.

    I’ve wondered many a time about the concept, without knowing about the existence of a term, so it’s good to find it and read up more. With morality in a constant state of flux, who would be objective enough to give an absolute perspective, and would it matter at all? I guess not. So maybe, in some later rendition of Rorschach, his moral absolutism might shift to consequentialism, (holds that the morality of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act) and a future reader would get a sense of how the times have changed.

    Late night. Red Signal. No vehicle or human in sight. Stop or Proceed? 🙂

    until next time, moral abdication

  • Running for eternity

    I must confess that I didn’t like Mitch Albom’s “Tuesdays with Morrie” as much as his other book “The Five People you meet in heaven“, but writing anything negative about a non-fiction book such as this is not in good taste, so I refrained from doing a review. I also think that it is not so much a bad book and this takeout is more to do with my evolution than the writing or the concept itself.

    The good thing though is that it does have quite a few nuggets that you can chew on for quite some time. 🙂 This is my attempt to thread together a few. To be precise, three of my favourites.

    At least a couple of times in the second half, Morrie talks about how people run after the next house, vacation, car, job etc because they think that this will grant them the elusive ‘meaning, and how our culture has ‘forced’ people to feel threatened when they stand to lose their materialistic gains. This is what makes money God, and them mean. This is, of course, completely debatable, but I brought this up only for context. It led me to think that how, in infancy and in old age (from several instances I have seen, read about) and perhaps sickness, we are more concerned with needs, and at all times in between, it moves towards wants.

    On a tangent, I remembered the ‘proof of good times’ thought that I’d shared earlier, more than a year back, in ‘Progress Report‘, and how we capture images and notes, sometimes for ourselves, and sometimes for others. Ourselves, for memories, and perhaps posterity, and others, because, I thought ubiquitous social connectivity is perhaps making us inadvertently live a life we want to portray to others. I discovered a nice usage in the book that connected to this thought of eternity attempts “And tapes, like photographs and videos are a desperate attempt to steal something from death’s suitcase“.

    And while on posterity and eternity, the last one, a quote from Henry Adams “A teacher affects eternity, he can never tell where his influence stops”. I think, in that sense, every being is a teacher, and thus lives on.

    until next time, wednesdays with manuscrypts, okay? 😉